DOCSLIB.ORG

Taxonomy Directed Folksonomies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Taxonomy Directed Folksonomies 2nd Version Date : 19/06/2007 TAXONOMY DIRECTED FOLKSONOMIES Integrating user tagging and controlled vocabularies for Australian education networks Sarah Hayman and Nick Lothian education.au Adelaide Australia Meeting: 157 Classification and Indexing Simultaneous Interpretation: No WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 19-23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa http://www.ifla.org/iv/ifla73/index.htm 1 Abstract What is the role of controlled vocabulary in a Web 2.0 world? Can we have the best of both worlds: balancing folksonomies and controlled vocabularies to help communities of users find and share information and resources most relevant to them? education.au develops and manages Australian online services for education and training. Its goal is to bring people, learning and technology together. education.au projects are increasingly involved in exploring the use of Web 2.0 developments building on user ideas, knowledge and experience, and how these might be integrated with existing information management systems. This paper presents work being undertaken in this area, particularly in relation to controlled vocabularies, and discusses the challenges faced. Education Network Australia (edna) is a leading online resource collection and collaborative network for education, with an extensive repository of selected educational resources with metadata created by educators and information specialists. It uses controlled vocabularies for metadata creation and searching, where users receive suggested related terms from an education thesaurus, with their results. We recognise that no formal thesaurus can keep pace with user needs so are interested in exploiting the power of folksonomies. We describe a proof of concept project to develop community contributions to managing information and resources, using Taxonomy-Directed Folksonomy. An established taxonomy from the Australian education sector suggests terms for tagging and users can suggest terms. Importantly, the folksonomy will feed back into the taxonomy showing gaps in coverage and helping us to monitor new terms and usage to improve and develop our formal taxonomies. This model would initially sit alongside the current edna repositories, tools and services but will give us valuable user contributed resources as well as information about how users manage resources. Observing terms suggested, chosen and used in folksonomies is a rich source of information for developing our formal systems so that we can indeed get the best of both worlds. 2 1 Introduction The potential of the Internet to benefit teaching and learning was the catalyst for the creation of the company education.au, and the dynamic advances in information and communication technology (ICT) since then have driven the evolution of the company‘s capability and offerings. As Australia‘s national ICT in education agency, education.au develops and manages national online services for students and educators across all sectors of Australian education. The organisation explores and provides innovative technology solutions and aims to develop connections between the creative edge of new technology and proven practice. This has always been done in a context of collaboration, sharing and networks and therefore the emergence of user contributions to information organisation and management on the web, as exemplified in the development of user tagging and folksonomies, is of great interest. education.au is keen to explore ways in which this new technology and user practice can inform its own services. One potential model is under consideration as a proof of concept development for a project referred to as myedna, a personalised interface to edna.. 3 edna (Education Network Australia) is Australia‘s leading online resource collection and collaborative network for the education and training community. edna is a joint initiative of the state and territory governments and the Australian Government, through their education departments, to provide free news, resources, networks and online tools for educators. edna is managed by education.au limited and has been operating since 1996. Although edna is developed and funded by the Australian education and training sector it is free online for use by anyone interested, including international users. Ownership of groups may not be available to those outside Australia but groups may have international members and edna resources may be searched and retrieved worldwide; many of the tools on the site are also freely available. edna identifies and links to online teaching and learning resources from Australian and international collections, extensive listings of national and international events; online groups, email discussion lists and newsletters; ICT innovations, tools and technologies, including learning objects, RSS feeds, wikis, blogs and podcasts. edna resources are carefully chosen and evaluated by specialised staff and are quality assured and up-to-date. The current edna website provides links to all the above online resources, searchable, categorised in a browse structure and organised within Australian educational sectors. Each resource is also assigned subject index terms by expert indexers using an appropriate thesaurus. All users essentially have the same experience on the website at present and see the same interface to events, resources and news. When they log in to edna Groups or edna Lists, they see their own selection of services. The next stage of development for edna is a project known as myedna which will enable users to personalise the way content from edna and other providers is displayed. However a fully customisable personal learning journey myedna will also allow users to do considerably more than that. 4 We are keen to find a way to involve users in the collection, evaluation and organisation of resources, so that they can customise their usage of edna, share their experiences and tell us through their behaviour and decisions what it is they value and how they want to use it. This matches very closely many of the developments in the Web 2.0 world with the advent of user generated content, online social networks, user tagging and folksonomies. 2 User tagging and folksonomies 2.1 The development of tagging The term Web 2.0, first used by Tim O‘Reilly in 2004, describes a cluster of web- based services with a social collaboration and sharing component, where the community as a whole contributes, takes control, votes and ranks content and contributors. Web 2.0 services include social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, weblogs, social bookmarking, podcasts, RSS feeds (and other forms of many- to-many publishing), social software, and folksonomies. Central to this new Web is the idea of tagging — the adding of keywords to a digital object (e.g. a website, picture, audiofile or videoclip) to categorise it. This activity is effectively subject indexing but generally without a controlled vocabulary. Tagging of course is not a new concept, especially to librarians, indexers and classification professionals. What is new is that the tagging is being done by everyone, no longer by only a small group of experts, and that the tags are being made public and shared. The development of the internet and the web, and of search 5 engines, led to users doing their own searching. In the Web 2.0 environment users are now also doing their own content creation and information management. The PEW internet survey of December 2006 (Rainie, 2007) found that 28% of internet users have tagged or categorised content online such as photos, news stories or blog posts. On a typical day online, 7% of internet users say they tag or categorise online content. Tagging is used in a range of sites for many different types of resources. Tagging is done somewhat differently at different websites, but the following all use some type of user tagging: Blogs (Technorati: http://technorati.com/ ) Bookmarks (Delicious: http://del.icio.us/ ) Books (Librarything: http://www.librarything.com/, Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/) Emails (Gmail: http://mail.google.com/ ) Events (http://www.goingtomeet.com/ ) People (Tagalag: http://www.tagalag.com/ ) Pictures (Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/ ) Podcasts (Odeo: http://odeo.com/ )) Videos (YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/ ) Even perhaps tagging of tags? (http://tagtagger.com/ ) In user tagging, after an account has been created a user can apply a tag (or label, or keyword) to a resource; it may be a website, a photograph or video, or a record for a book as in Librarything. 6 The user chooses a tag that is meaningful to him or her. In most sites it has to be a single word – more about that later. A large number of tags can be applied (e.g. in Flickr the maximum number at the time of writing is 75). Once the tags have been assigned, they act as index terms and they may be public or private. When they are public, the tags together can all be searched by all users, creating a ―folksonomy‖. It is important to remember that users have complete freedom in the tags they choose and may assign tags for their own organising purposes, without regard to any other users who may wish to make use of them. Even if this is the case, there may still be valuable information in the collection of tags that develops. In many cases however, users are keen to share their tags and will choose tags that others have also used. Users can add their own tags to already tagged resources. They may use a different word for the same concept or a broader or more specific word for a related concept. The aggregation of all the tags allows a site like Flickr to organise resources better for all users, and also informs the site owners about the popularity of tags and of resources. This can be described as a bottom-up rather than top-down building of categories. Tags, once assigned, can be grouped, shared, displayed, published and managed in several ways. Typically tags are displayed in a ―tag cloud‖ on many sites, where the graphical display indicates by size, font or colour how many times the tag has been used or how many resources have been assigned that tag.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thesauruses and Ontologies
    Thesauruses and ontologies Silvia Arano Citación recomendada: Silvia Arano. Thesauruses and ontologies [en linea]. "Hipertext.net", num. 3, 2005. <http://www.hipertext.net> [Consulted: 12 feb. 2007]. 1. Introduction During the past few years, the information representation and retrieval sector in the area of Documentation and Biblioteconomy has had to assume the important repercussions of the Internet and its associated technologies, and in particular, the World Wide Web (WWW). Technological modifications arising from these important changes are leading to the gradual digitalisation of the information representation and retrieval sector, affecting information artefacts, representation and retrieval tools and user requirements. In the light of this growing context of digitalisation, diverse information representation and retrieval tools exist, which must be studied in addition to diverse fields of knowledge in which these tools have originated: Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, Documentation, Linguistic Engineering... Hence, in specialised literature, analyses are performed on information representation and retrieval tools, taxonomies, classification systems, computational lexicons, lexical databases, thesauruses, titles lists, knowledge bases, conceptual maps, ontologies, synonym rings and semantic networks, among others. Among this wide spectrum of information representation and retrieval tools are thesauruses and ontologies, which are most often linked in bibliography, even though they come from completely different disciplinary areas. However, the conceptualisation applied by authors to the terms "thesaurus" and "ontology" is quite diverse, and sometimes authors confuse, oppose, complement or overlap both these concepts. The overall objective of the present article [ 1] is to establish the relationship between the concepts of thesaurus and ontology in the Documentation and Biblioteconomy field. Two specific objectives have been established for this purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary and Bibliography for Vocabularies 1 the Codes (For Example, the Dewey Decimal System Number 735.942)
    Glossary and Bibliography for Controlled Vocabularies Glossary AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition) A content standard published by the American Library Association (ALA), Canadian Library Association (CLA), and Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). It is being replaced by RDA. abbreviation A shortened form of a name or term (for example, Mr. for Mister). See also acronym and initialism. access point An entry point to a systematic arrangement of information, specifically an indexed field or heading in a work record, vocabulary record, or other content object that is formatted and indexed in order to provide access to the information in the record. acronym An abbreviation or word formed from the initial letters of a compound term or phrase (for example, MoMA, for Museum of Modern Art). See also initialism and abbreviation. ad hoc query Also called a direct query. A query or report that is constructed when required and that directly accesses data files and fields that are selected only when the query is created. It differs from a predefined report or querying a database through a user interface. administrative entity In the context of a geographic vocabulary, a political or other administrative body defined by administrative boundaries and conditions, including inhabited places, nations, empires, nations, states, districts, and townships. administrative data In the context of cataloging art, information having to do with the administrative history and care of the work and the history of the catalog record (for example, insurance value, conservation history, and revision history of the catalog record). See also descriptive data. algorithm A formula or procedure for solving a problem or carrying out a task.
    [Show full text]
  • Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: a Review and Framework
    Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework Item Type Journal Article (On-line/Unpaginated) Authors Trant, Jennifer Citation Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework 2009-01, 10(1) Journal of Digital Information Journal Journal of Digital Information Download date 02/10/2021 03:25:18 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105375 Trant, Jennifer (2009) Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework. Journal of Digital Information 10(1). Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework J. Trant, University of Toronto / Archives & Museum Informatics 158 Lee Ave, Toronto, ON Canada M4E 2P3 jtrant [at] archimuse.com Abstract This paper reviews research into social tagging and folksonomy (as reflected in about 180 sources published through December 2007). Methods of researching the contribution of social tagging and folksonomy are described, and outstanding research questions are presented. This is a new area of research, where theoretical perspectives and relevant research methods are only now being defined. This paper provides a framework for the study of folksonomy, tagging and social tagging systems. Three broad approaches are identified, focusing first, on the folksonomy itself (and the role of tags in indexing and retrieval); secondly, on tagging (and the behaviour of users); and thirdly, on the nature of social tagging systems (as socio-technical frameworks). Keywords: Social tagging, folksonomy, tagging, literature review, research review 1. Introduction User-generated keywords – tags – have been suggested as a lightweight way of enhancing descriptions of on-line information resources, and improving their access through broader indexing. “Social Tagging” refers to the practice of publicly labeling or categorizing resources in a shared, on-line environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue and Index
    ISSN 2399-9667 Catalogue and Index Periodical of the Cataloguing and Indexing Group, a Special Interest Group of CILIP, the Library and Information Association Editorial September 2017, Issue 188 Contents 3-10 Deborah Lee & Classification is the theme of this bumper issue of Catalogue and Index. Anastasia Kerameos There was a tremendous response to the call for papers, illustrating the importance and interest in classification to the U.K. cataloguing and 11-16 John Akeroyd & metadata community. The classification discussed in this issue comes in many flavours, including the usage of classification schemes, digital tools Aida Slavic for classification, the theory of classification, reclassification, and much 17-20 Vanda Broughton more besides. 21-26 Sean Goddard & The issue starts by exploring the usage of classification schemes. Deborah Lee and Anastasia Kerameos outline the results of a survey Tim Haillay into U.K. classification practices, linked to the recent CILIP CIG workshop “Thinking about classification”. John Ackeroyd and Aida Slavic 27-29 Jane Del-Pizzo discuss how UDC is used, including survey results relating to the U.K. 30-33 Marcin Trzmielewski, and the use of UDC in repositories and as part of catalogue records. Vanda Broughton discusses classification theory and how classification Claudio Gnoli, Marco (and classification schemes) are still a critical part of organizing Lardera, Gaia Heidi information. Pallestrini & Matea Sipic Reclassification is another significant part of cataloguing and 34-37 Nicky Ransom classification life, and this issue is a rich source of information about 38-42 Penny Doulgeris various reclassification projects. Sean Goddard and Tim Haillay describe a reclassification project at the University of Sussex, specifically 43-45 Mary Mitchell focussed on language and literature.
    [Show full text]
  • OGC Testbed-14: Semantically Enabled Aviation Data Models Engineering Report
    OGC Testbed-14 Semantically Enabled Aviation Data Models Engineering Report Table of Contents 1. Summary . 4 1.1. Requirements & Research Motivation . 4 1.2. Prior-After Comparison. 4 1.3. Recommendations for Future Work . 5 1.4. What does this ER mean for the Working Group and OGC in general . 6 1.5. Document contributor contact points . 6 1.6. Foreword . 6 2. References . 8 3. Terms and definitions . 9 3.1. Semantics . 9 3.2. Service Description. 9 3.3. Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) . 9 3.4. Registry . 9 3.5. System Wide Information Management (SWIM) . 9 3.6. Taxonomy . 9 3.7. Web Service . 10 4. Abbreviated Terms . 11 5. Overview . 12 6. Review of Data Models . 13 6.1. Information Exchange Models . 13 6.1.1. Flight Information Exchange Model (FIXM). 13 6.1.2. Aeronautical Information Exchange (AIXM) Model. 13 6.1.3. Weather Information Exchange Model (WXXM) . 14 6.1.4. NASA Air Traffic Management (ATM) Model . 14 6.2. Service description models . 19 6.2.1. Service Description Conceptual Model (SDCM) . 19 6.2.2. Web Service Description Ontological Model (WSDOM). 23 6.2.3. SWIM Documentation Controlled Vocabulary (FAA) . 25 7. Semantic Enablement Approaches . 27 8. Metadata level semantic enablement . 33 8.1. Issues with existing metadata standards . 34 8.1.1. Identification of Resources. 34 8.1.2. Resolvable URI. 34 8.1.3. Multilingual Support . 35 8.1.4. External Resource Descriptions . 35 8.1.5. Controlled Vocabulary Management . 36 8.1.6. Keywords Types . 37 8.1.7. Keyword Labeling Inconsistencies .
    [Show full text]
  • Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies? Hak-Lae Kim Samsung Electronics Co., LTD
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) Americas Conference on Information Systems AMCIS 2010 Proceedings (AMCIS) 8-2010 Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies? Hak-Lae Kim Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. 416, Maetan-3dong, Yeongtong-gu Suwon-city, Gyeonggi-do, 443-742 Korea, [email protected] Jae-Hwa Choi Dankook University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010 Recommended Citation Kim, Hak-Lae and Choi, Jae-Hwa, "Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies?" (2010). AMCIS 2010 Proceedings. 68. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/68 This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in AMCIS 2010 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kim, et al. Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies? Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies? Hak-Lae Kim Jae-Hwa Choi Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. College of Business 416, Maetan-3dong, Yeongtong-gu Dankook University Suwon-city, Gyeonggi-do, 443-742 San#29, Anseo-dong, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan-si, Korea Chungnam, 330-714, Korea [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper is to investigate some general features of social tagging and folksonomies along with their advantages and disadvantages, and to present an overview of a tag ontology that can be used to represent tagging data at a semantic level using Semantic Web technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Contents the Three Languages Theory In
    Ie Contents The Three LanguagesTheory in Information Retrieval Part-controlled Vocabulary for Literature Studies UDC: International Medium Edition - English Text Class Number Searching in an Experimental Online Catalog UDC 168 + International Classification Vol. 13 (1986) Nr. 3 025.4 + 001.4 (05) INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION Devoted to Concept Theory, Systematic Ter­ minology and Organization of Knowledge Editors Dr. phil. Ingetraut Dahlberg, 0-6000 Frank­ furt 50, Woogstr. 36a, Editor-in-chief Prof. Dr. med. Dr. phil. Alwin Diemer, Philo­ sophisches Institut der Universitat Dusseldorf, D-4000 Dusseldorf 1, Universitatsstr. 1, FRG. Prof. Jean M. Perreault, University Library, University of Alabama, P. O. B. 2600 Hunts­ Contents ville, Alabama 35807, USA Prof. Arashanipalai Neelameghan, clo Unes­ Editorial co PGI. 7, Place de Fontenoy, F-75700 Paris New Uses for Old Schemes 125 co-sponsored by - FID/CR (Federation Internationale de Do­ Articles cumentation, Committee on Classification Re­ G.Deschatelets: The three languages theory in information retrieval. 126 search, address see Dr. I. Dahlberg K.Harris: Part-controlled vocabulary for literature studies ..... 133 A.Chatterjee, G.G.Choudhury: UDC: International Medium Edition - Consulting Editors Mrs. Jean Aitchison, 12, Sollershott West, English text ....... ,. .. ....... ... .... 137 K.Markey: Class number searching in an experimental online catalog 142 Letchworth, Herts., SG6 3PX, England Prof. Asterio T. Campos, Departamento de Bi­ Reports and Communications . ... .. 151 blioteconomia, Universidade de Brasilia, Bra­ CSNA Annual Meeting 1986 - COMPSTAT 1986 - Fall Meeting of SEK DA-NK, silia OF, Brazil Gesellschaft flir Klassifikation - Stability in Classification - Dr. A.1. Cernyj, VINITI, Moscow A-219 Bal­ Standardization in Computerized Lexicography - Going for Gold - tijskaja u1.
    [Show full text]
  • Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata
    Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata Adam Mathes Computer Mediated Communication - LIS590CMC Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign December 2004 Abstract This paper examines user-generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital me- dia to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information. The creation of metadata has generally been approached in two ways: professional creation and author creation. In li- braries and other organizations, creating metadata, primarily in the form of catalog records, has traditionally been the domain of dedicated profes- sionals working with complex, detailed rule sets and vocabularies. The primary problem with this approach is scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being produced and used, especially on the World Wide Web. The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without spe- cialized training and knowledge. A second approach is for metadata to be created by authors. The movement towards creator described docu- ments was heralded by SGML, the WWW, and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. There are problems with this approach as well - often due to inadequate or inaccurate description, or outright deception. This paper examines a third approach: user-created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community. 1 The Creation of Metadata: Professionals, Con- tent Creators, Users Metadata is often characterized as “data about data.” Metadata is information, often highly structured, about documents, books, articles, photographs, or other items that is designed to support specific functions.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Folksonomy of Tagging Information
    IRA-International Journal of Education & Multidisciplinary Studies ISSN 2455–2526; Vol.03, Issue 03 (2016) Institute of Research Advances http://research-advances.org/index.php/IJEMS Technical Folksonomy of Tagging Information Sonali Dapsi Librarian, Raja Peary Mohan College, India. Sudip Ranjan Hatua Asst Prof. Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata, India. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21013/jems.v3.n3.p6 How to cite this paper: Dapsi, S., & Hatua, S. (2016). Technical Folksonomy of Tagging Information. IRA International Journal of Education and Multidisciplinary Studies (ISSN 2455–2526), 3(3). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21013/jems.v3.n3.p6 © Institute of Research Advances This works is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License subject to proper citation to the publication source of the work. Disclaimer: The scholarly papers as reviewed and published by the Institute of Research Advances (IRA) are the views and opinions of their respective authors and are not the views or opinions of the IRA. The IRA disclaims of any harm or loss caused due to the published content to any party. 333 IRA-International Journal of Education & Multidisciplinary Studies ABSTRACT The Study of the various articles published in Library and Information Science Journals in the resent times shows that the keywords provided by the authors along with their articles are mostly uncontrolled. They are basically phrases. In spite of the knowledge of controlled vocabulary and various subject heading scheme they mostly are using natural word and sentences to represent the thought content of their research outcomes. This is generating new trends of representing subjects known as technical folksonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology Vs. Folksonomy
    Ontology vs. Folksonomy Theodosia Togia 1 Comparison ONTOLOGY FOLKSONOMY designed by knowledge engineers collaboratively created by users laborious quick & easy requires expertise no expertise needed hard to implement on a large scale used on large-scale document collections controlled vocabulary no vocabulary control engineer's view of the world social aspect of meaning formal specification of knowledge domains informal metadata on documents structured unstructured (but structure emerges) not necessarily web-based typically web-based essential for the semantic web important in web 2.0 (social web) high expressive power low expressive power explicit meaning ambiguity synonyms, homonyms etc. can be clearly stated synonyms separated; homonyms conflated 2 Folksonomies • broad vs. narrow folksonomies • social vs. personal tagging (public vs. private tags) • tagging behaviour can give information about language and society • entry points to document collections: documents (their tags and users can be browsed), tags (their documents and users can be browsed), users (their tags and documents can be browsed) • not just typical information retrieval, but also resource discovery 1 3 Ontologies • facilitate interpersonal communication, human-computer interaction, inter-computer interaction • can be extended with new predicates (known as `concepts' or `classes' if they have 1 argument; `properties' or `relations' if they have at least 2 arguments) and axioms/rules. • How complex/expressive is an ontology? Depends on terminology. (usually frames, Description Logics, First-Order Logic; maybe higher- order logics too) • relations of equivalence (e.g. `equals', `hasOpposite'), hierarchy (e.g. `isA'/`isSubclassOf', `isPartOf', `isInstanceOf'), other associations (e.g. `hasColour') • decisions to be made: granularity, classes vs. instances 4 Competing or Complementary? Folksonomy and Ontology both: • broaden the spectrum of knowledge representation in different direc- tions.
    [Show full text]
  • What Are Controlled Vocabularies?
    2. What Are Controlled Vocabularies? A controlled vocabulary is an organized arrangement of words and phrases used to index content and/or to retrieve content through browsing or searching. It typically includes preferred and variant terms and has a defined scope or describes a specific domain. 2.1. Purpose of Controlled Vocabularies The purpose of controlled vocabularies is to organize information and to provide terminology to catalog and retrieve information. While capturing the richness of variant terms, controlled vocabularies also promote consistency in preferred terms and the assignment of the same terms to similar content. Given that a shared goal of the cultural heritage community is to improve access to visual arts and material culture information, controlled vocabularies are essential. They are necessary at the indexing phase because without them catalogers will not consistently use the same term to refer to the same person, place, or thing. In the retrieval process, various end users may use different synonyms or more generic terms to refer to a given concept. End users are often not specialists and thus need to be guided because they may not know the correct term. The most important functions of a controlled vocabulary are to gather together variant terms and synonyms for concepts and to link concepts in a logical order or sort them into categories. Are a rose window and a Catherine wheel the same thing? How is pot-metal glass related to the more general term stained glass? The links and relationships in a controlled vocabulary ensure that these connections are defined and maintained, for both cataloging and retrieval.
    [Show full text]
  • Visualizing Social Indexing Semantics
    PREPRINT Visualizing Social Indexing Semantics Yusef Hassan-Montero1 and Víctor Herrero-Solana2 March 2007 1 SCImago Research Group. [email protected] 2 SCImago Research Group. [email protected] Abstract Social tagging is a distributed indexing process where web resources are described by means of tags – freely chosen keywords or labels – by their users. The aggregated result of social tagging is usually known as Folksonomy, an index where each resource is related to different tags by different users. This paper describes an approach to visualize both the overview and detail of semantic relationships intrinsic in the folksonomy. For this purpose, folksonomy is displayed as a network: tags are represented as nodes and semantic relationships as links between nodes. The semantic relationships are measured using the Jaccard coefficient, which determines the thickness of the link between tags. The bisecting K-mean algorithm is applied to cluster the tags, and the tags in the same cluster are displayed with the same colour. In order to ensure that the overview of social tagging is comprehensible, the Pathfinder Network Scaling algorithm is used to prune the network and only show the most significant links among tags. In addition, to get a better understanding of the local semantic relationships of a tag, an interactive procedure was applied to display some important links pruned by Pathfinder when the user moves mouse over a tag. The presented approach provides a means of knowledge acquisition and understanding of the socially constructed meaning of tags, as well as a means of visual information retrieval. Keywords Social Indexing, Pathfinder Networks, Clustering, Visual Information Retrieval Interfaces 1.
    [Show full text]